A lawsuit regarding a dentist and her ticked-off patient was meant to be a test of a controversial copyright contract created by a company called Medical Justice. Just a day after the lawsuit was filed, though, Medical Justice backed down, saying it was “retiring” that contract.

Now, more than a year after the lawsuit was filed, the case against Dr. Stacy Makhnevich seems to have turned into a case about a fugitive dentist. Makhnevich is nowhere to be found, won’t defend the lawsuit, and her lawyers have asked to withdraw from the case.

No-criticism contract promised additional “privacy”

In 2010, Robert Lee was experiencing serious dental pain. He went to see Dr. Stacy Makhnevich, the “Classical Singer Dentist of New York,” in part because she was a preferred provider for his dental insurance company. Before Makhnevich treated him, she asked him to sign a contract titled “Mutual Agreement to Maintain Privacy.”

The contract worked like this: in return for closing “loopholes” in HIPAA privacy law, Lee promised to refrain from publishing any “commentary” of Makhnevich, online or elsewhere. The contract specified that Lee should “not denigrate, defame, disparage, or cast aspersions upon the Dentist.”

And the kicker: if he did write such reviews, the copyright would be assigned to the dentist. She’d own it.

This “I own your criticism” contract would soon be put to the test, because Lee was an extremely unhappy customer. “Avoid at all cost!” he wrote in a one-star Yelp review. “Scamming their customers! Overcharged me by about $4000 for what should have been only a couple-hundred dollar procedure.”

The forms Makhnevich was using, provided to her by a company called Medical Justice, were already the subject of considerable controversy. Two tech-savvy law professors, Eric Goldman of Santa Clara University and Jason Schultz of UC Berkeley, launched a website to fight the contracts, which garnered considerable press. Former Ars Technica writer Tim Lee chronicled his own experience with a Philadelphia dentist who was using the contract.

The “Mutual Agreement” was essentially a work-around to try to stifle patient reviews. Doctors, or any other business, who believe that an online review is, say, defamatory, can go ahead and sue a reviewer—but they don’t have an easy way to get the review down. Review sites like Yelp are protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which immunizes the platforms hosting such user-generated content, as long as they don’t edit it heavily. Review sites in the US don’t typically remove posts when a business claims defamation.

Copyright, however, is a different story. Section 230 doesn’t cover intellectual property laws, and Yelp has to react quickly to claims that a user has violated copyright law.

Users of the Medical Justice form were counting on that, and it worked. In September 2011, staff members of Dr. Makhnevich sent DMCA takedown notices to Yelp and DoctorBase. That was followed up with invoices sent to Robert Lee, saying he owed $100 per day for copyright infringement. Accompanying letters threatened to pursue “all legal actions” against him.

Makhnevich disappears: The Streisand Effect “gone bonkers”

Lee got in touch with attorney Paul Levy at Public Citizen, who has a history of taking on Internet free-speech issues, and was looking for a way to challenge the Medical Justice contract. In November 2011, Public Citizen filed a lawsuit seeking class action status, arguing that Lee’s reviews were fair use and non-defamatory. The lawsuit also alleged that Makhnevich’s “don’t criticize me” contracts were violations of New York business laws and dental ethics rules.

Levy envisioned a courtroom showdown with Medical Justice—but the case hasn’t panned out that way. Medical Justice hasn't defended the contract. And in the last few months, Makhnevich seems to have disappeared entirely. Her own lawyers can’t get in touch with her. On Tuesday, US District Judge Paul Crotty held a conference about whether the lawyers should be allowed to withdraw from the case. (They’ll be allowed to, with a few conditions.)

“Defendant Makhnevich has closed its business in New York, has closed its offices, and has not made herself available to respond to this matter,” wrote Makhnevich’s lawyers on June 25. At that time, they hadn’t communicated with Makhnevich in three months, and that communication had been through her assistant.

“We brought this lawsuit to make sure she stopped and to point out to other dentists that they couldn't do this,” said Levy in an interview with Ars. “We thought Medical Justice would step in to defend her. Instead, they walked away from it and left her holding the bag. And now she’s left her lawyers holding the bag.”

Levy is seeking to get Lee back the money he was overcharged and to have notice sent to Makhnevich’s other patients that the contracts they signed don’t prevent them from writing reviews. He’s also seeking to get legal fees paid for; it cost $3,000 to serve Makhnevich, he noted.

It isn’t clear whether Makhnevich is practicing dentistry or not, but the disappearing act she pulled in this case would suggest she isn’t.

“It’s quite possible that the consequence of her having this contract is that she had to give up her dental practice,” said Levy. “It’s the Streisand effect gone bonkers.”

Unless she shows up soon, the case is likely to end in a default judgment. At that point Levy would attempt to collect payment from her insurance company, or any other source. “She may have some assets,” said Levy. “Dental equipment is not cheap.”

“It’s quite possible that the consequence of her having this contract is that she had to give up her dental practice,”

I guess that is for the best given that there are people too stupid or too desperate to walk out of there when presented with that nonsense.

Or unable to walk due to insurance restrictions.

I was about to say. Most people can't afford out of pocket costs for things like dental care, so they rely upon insurance. Depending upon what type of coverage you have and with what company, you can be horribly limited in what doctors you're allowed to visit and still be covered.

My own mother takes Orencia for rheumatoid arthritis. She used to take a large infusion at the doctor's office twice a year (once every 6 months). The insurance company then stated they would no longer cover that, and now she gets a daily self-injected shot. She receives a weekly supply via Fed-Ex overnight, as the drug needs to be refrigerated. That weekly supply costs several thousand dollars - and is significantly more expensive than the infusions at the doctor's office. But, she's limited by what her insurance company wants to do.

Not an IP lawyer (yet), but I cannot see how these types of contracts could be enforceable. A copyright assignment (i.e. an exclusive transfer of copyright ownership) requires a written statement of exclusive copyright transfer. While this contract signature might count for the written portion, the assignment also needs to be definite, which "[criticism that] denigrate[s], defame[s], disparage[s], or cast[s] aspersions upon the Dentist," is not.

When you assign a copyright, you have to be very particular about what exactly you are assigning. While the "written" requirement is usually met (even e-mail counts), the contract has to at least specify the existence and assignment of the copyrighted material in question. It is indefinite and therefore unenforceable to assign a copyright to something, much less any number of things, that do not yet exist. For example, I cannot assign a copyright to something I create if what I create infringes on someone else's copyright. For example, if my sister wrote the criticism in question for me and I as the patient posted it, I could not assign the copyright, as I would not be the copyright owner. Blanket assignment of this fashion is presumably outside the four corners of the contract, thus invalidating the contract and the copyright assignment.

Fortunately this is one of those situations where copyright law actually should work as intended, and it seems to be doing so. Obviously the DMCA takedown provision needs some work, but at least that doesn't seem to be the predominant issue here.

Not an IP lawyer (yet), but I cannot see how these types of contracts could be enforceable. A copyright assignment (i.e. an exclusive transfer of copyright ownership) requires a written statement of exclusive copyright transfer. While this contract signature might count for the written portion, the assignment also needs to be definite, which "[criticism that] denigrate[s], defame[s], disparage[s], or cast[s] aspersions upon the Dentist," is not.

When you assign a copyright, you have to be very particular about what exactly you are assigning. While the "written" requirement is usually met (even e-mail counts), the contract has to at least specify the existence and assignment of the copyrighted material in question. It is indefinite and therefore unenforceable to assign a copyright to something, much less any number of things, that do not yet exist. For example, I cannot assign a copyright to something I create if what I create infringes on someone else's copyright. For example, if my sister wrote the criticism in question for me and I as the patient posted it, I could not assign the copyright, as I would not be the copyright owner. Blanket assignment of this fashion is presumably outside the four corners of the contract, thus invalidating the contract and the copyright assignment.

Fortunately this is one of those situations where copyright law actually should work as intended, and it seems to be doing so. Obviously the DMCA takedown provision needs some work, but at least that doesn't seem to be the predominant issue here.

The point obviously wasn't to create anything enforceable -- just something that looked enforceable.

It's a failing of our justice system that there's no stricture against creating illegal contracts even by people who ought to know better. You have to go to court to *prove* such things illegal, which is expensive and difficult and often time consuming. People abuse this enormously.

There's only rarely any fallout for the lawyer who *should* have damned well known better.

Not an IP lawyer (yet), but I cannot see how these types of contracts could be enforceable.

<snip>

I can't see how contracts in general can trump constitutional rights in general, such as the freedom of speech. Contracts are automatically void when they go against law, and I'm not sure where law failed to include our rights.

It strikes me as a repugnant state of affairs when such agreements are seen as possible and even normal (thinking here of the common practice where settlements become void if one party discloses, typically the peon, thus allowing most people to be silenced in legal matters).

Not an IP lawyer (yet), but I cannot see how these types of contracts could be enforceable.

<snip>

I can't see how contracts in general can trump constitutional rights in general, such as the freedom of speech. Contracts are automatically void when they go against law, and I'm not sure where law failed to include our rights.

A non-disclosure agreement (NDA) is a very common and (frequently) good example of when a contract prevents free speech. They're a fundamental part of a lot of business transactions.

It is indefinite and therefore unenforceable to assign a copyright to something, much less any number of things, that do not yet exist.

My understanding is that, for example, a photographer with a newspaper is (generally) under a contract whereby the copyright on all pictures he takes in the line of duty belongs to the paper. Wouldn't that be assigning copyright on something that doesn't exist?

It seems like it'd be a mess of paperwork to have to get a copyright transfer on every picture the photographer takes, after the fact.

Not an IP lawyer (yet), but I cannot see how these types of contracts could be enforceable.

<snip>

I can't see how contracts in general can trump constitutional rights in general, such as the freedom of speech. Contracts are automatically void when they go against law, and I'm not sure where law failed to include our rights.

It strikes me as a repugnant state of affairs when such agreements are seen as possible and even normal (thinking here of the common practice where settlements become void if one party discloses, typically the peon, thus allowing most people to be silenced in legal matters).

Because in the U.S. it is legal and common to sign away your legal rights in a contract. Attend a private school, you sign away your freedom of speech in agreeing to conform to the dress code. Work at jobs with mandatory drug testing, you've signed away your right to privacy.

There's a delicate balance that must be achieved between the "freedom to contract" and constitutional rights -- one that is oft debated in the legal world, and upon which the U.S. and Europe have vastly different opinions. Some of these abridgements are even built into the law. Code something at work, and it belongs to your employer (which is sensible, since that is why they are paying you and giving you company resources). Nor can you exercise your right to bear arms on properties that post "no firearms allowed."

The U.S. itself has gone through varying degrees of accepting contractual freedom. California, for example, will readily invalidate contracts that are deemed to be against the public interest or against constitutional interests. Sometimes it's good, and sometimes it's bad. As per your example, what would happen if we had a world where infinite freedom of speech meant that no trade secrets could ever be kept? How quickly would Coca Cola go under when their recipe was free for all to create and reproduce without any threat of recourse for them? How could the true inventor contract a machine shop to invent his new widget, necessary to reduce to practice in order to get a patent?

Deputiger wrote:

The point obviously wasn't to create anything enforceable -- just something that looked enforceable.

It's a failing of our justice system that there's no stricture against creating illegal contracts even by people who ought to know better. You have to go to court to *prove* such things illegal, which is expensive and difficult and often time consuming. People abuse this enormously.

This is true, but how would you propose we punish people for creating illegal contracts without proving that the contract is illegal? To do otherwise would be to assert guilt until proven innocence, which we already lambaste the DMCA for.

There is already a punishment for creating unenforceable contracts (damages), though these require traditional legal channels, as they should. Small claims court usually aren't nearly as bad as the big, media-level cases we get to read about. The patient in this case seems to be winning, as intended. There is also the whole "bad faith" takedown part of the DMCA, but that has been problematic in its own right.

You do have an option for recourse -- don't sign the contract. Or, as I like to do, modify the contract to suit and sign to the modifications. In a perfect world, you could just go to a competitor who's willing not to put the bad contract provision in. Obviously this isn't a perfect world, but the problems of healthcare coverage and 500-page boilerplate contracts are a different issue.

Side note: if anyone ever hands you a huge contract, make sure to stand in line and read the whole thing. If they ask you to step aside, don't. I have even had a phone company tell me, after customers started walking away behind me, "Just forget it. You don't need to sign."

Quote:

There's only rarely any fallout for the lawyer who *should* have damned well known better.

This. As long as the Bar polices its own, there will be some degree of cronyism at play. It takes an awful lot for a lawyer to get more than a slap on the wrist, and when it does happen it just as likely happens for the wrong reasons to the wrong attorney. However, I can tell you as someone entering the profession, the vast majority of lawyers do not understand the intricacies of copyright law. To be fair, the vast majority of Arsians don't understand the intricacies of copyright law either, and if we don't, what hope does your typical business contract attorney have? I'm sure the attorney in question here thought he or she was being clever in finding a way to eliminate, at the client's request, negative publicity but had no idea it would be illegal/unenforceable.

The real fun is if there isn't a severability clause, and the whole contract gets thrown out as a result.

Edit:

Korpo wrote:

My understanding is that, for example, a photographer with a newspaper is (generally) under a contract whereby the copyright on all pictures he takes in the line of duty belongs to the paper. Wouldn't that be assigning copyright on something that doesn't exist?

It seems like it'd be a mess of paperwork to have to get a copyright transfer on every picture the photographer takes, after the fact.

davharris wrote:

How do book advances work then? Presumably the publisher offers some money in exchange for copyright on a book that doesn't yet exist, right?

Sorry, I summarized too much. It is legally possible to assign future copyrights. There are certain bounds and technical requirements that vary from medium to medium, jurisdiction to jurisdiction, regarding what makes a valid future copyright assignment. As a general rule, you have to describe particularly what is being assigned (though this varies in severity from jurisdiction to jurisdiction). For the book publisher, the advancement would cover the book, which would be described in the contract.

Regarding the photographer, usually such contracts fall under the work-for-hire doctrine anyway, since the photographer becomes an employee of the newspaper. The same to some extent can be said of the book-writer, though there are mild differences regarding employee/contractor distinction. Both cases are presumably different than the present case, however, since the writer and photographer are remunerated for their work (ie. they are employees/contractors who are paid to produce copyrights for the parent company) whereas the patient here was not.

Not an IP lawyer (yet), but I cannot see how these types of contracts could be enforceable.

<snip>

I can't see how contracts in general can trump constitutional rights in general, such as the freedom of speech. Contracts are automatically void when they go against law, and I'm not sure where law failed to include our rights.

A non-disclosure agreement (NDA) is a very common and (frequently) good example of when a contract prevents free speech. They're a fundamental part of a lot of business transactions.

NDAs cover specific information that one party is sharing with the other on agreement of confidentiality (business details, pre-release books/movies, etc.) They aren't really a restriction on free speech as such: both parties are free to say whatever they want, they just can't release the agreed-upon confidential information in doing so.

It is indefinite and therefore unenforceable to assign a copyright to something, much less any number of things, that do not yet exist.

My understanding is that, for example, a photographer with a newspaper is (generally) under a contract whereby the copyright on all pictures he takes in the line of duty belongs to the paper. Wouldn't that be assigning copyright on something that doesn't exist?

It seems like it'd be a mess of paperwork to have to get a copyright transfer on every picture the photographer takes, after the fact.

Part of the who owns the original copyright has to do with whether the content was created as an employee, as a commissioned work, or on "spec" with no contractual obligations. If you are an employee your work is owned by your emploer. Commissioned works vary, but as has been pointed out the assignment needs very specific and very narrow. "Spec" works are owned by the creator unless specifically assigned to someone else. The courts may look at is whether one was paid to create the content; either as an employee or on a commission. Since none of the reviewers (good or bad) were paid the courts may not look very kindly on the contract.

Not an IP lawyer (yet), but I cannot see how these types of contracts could be enforceable.

<snip>

I can't see how contracts in general can trump constitutional rights in general, such as the freedom of speech. Contracts are automatically void when they go against law, and I'm not sure where law failed to include our rights.

The Constitution only protects you from the government trampling your right to free speech, free assembly, etc. There are no such protections when it comes to private parties, and absolutely they can ask you to sign away whatever rights they want you to sign away in exchange for something else.

I can require everyone in my house to have a gun, or be Jewish, or wear an I LIKE IKE shirt if that's my deal, because I'm not the government.

Not an IP lawyer (yet), but I cannot see how these types of contracts could be enforceable.

<snip>

I can't see how contracts in general can trump constitutional rights in general, such as the freedom of speech. Contracts are automatically void when they go against law, and I'm not sure where law failed to include our rights.

It strikes me as a repugnant state of affairs when such agreements are seen as possible and even normal (thinking here of the common practice where settlements become void if one party discloses, typically the peon, thus allowing most people to be silenced in legal matters).

Because in the U.S. it is legal and common to sign away your legal rights in a contract. Attend a private school, you sign away your freedom of speech in agreeing to conform to the dress code. Work at jobs with mandatory drug testing, you've signed away your right to privacy.

There's a delicate balance that must be achieved between the "freedom to contract" and constitutional rights -- one that is oft debated in the legal world, and upon which the U.S. and Europe have vastly different opinions. Some of these abridgements are even built into the law. Code something at work, and it belongs to your employer (which is sensible, since that is why they are paying you and giving you company resources). Nor can you exercise your right to bear arms on properties that post "no firearms allowed."

The U.S. itself has gone through varying degrees of accepting contractual freedom. California, for example, will readily invalidate contracts that are deemed to be against the public interest or against constitutional interests. Sometimes it's good, and sometimes it's bad. As per your example, what would happen if we had a world where infinite freedom of speech meant that no trade secrets could ever be kept? How quickly would Coca Cola go under when their recipe was free for all to create and reproduce without any threat of recourse for them? How could the true inventor contract a machine shop to invent his new widget, necessary to reduce to practice in order to get a patent?

Deputiger wrote:

The point obviously wasn't to create anything enforceable -- just something that looked enforceable.

It's a failing of our justice system that there's no stricture against creating illegal contracts even by people who ought to know better. You have to go to court to *prove* such things illegal, which is expensive and difficult and often time consuming. People abuse this enormously.

This is true, but how would you propose we punish people for creating illegal contracts without proving that the contract is illegal? To do otherwise would be to assert guilt until proven innocence, which we already lambaste the DMCA for.

There is already a punishment for creating unenforceable contracts (damages), though these require traditional legal channels, as they should. Small claims court usually aren't nearly as bad as the big, media-level cases we get to read about. The patient in this case seems to be winning, as intended. There is also the whole "bad faith" takedown part of the DMCA, but that has been problematic in its own right.

You do have an option for recourse -- don't sign the contract. Or, as I like to do, modify the contract to suit and sign to the modifications. In a perfect world, you could just go to a competitor who's willing not to put the bad contract provision in. Obviously this isn't a perfect world, but the problems of healthcare coverage and 500-page boilerplate contracts are a different issue.

Side note: if anyone ever hands you a huge contract, make sure to stand in line and read the whole thing. If they ask you to step aside, don't. I have even had a phone company tell me, after customers started walking away behind me, "Just forget it. You don't need to sign."

Quote:

There's only rarely any fallout for the lawyer who *should* have damned well known better.

This. As long as the Bar polices its own, there will be some degree of cronyism at play. It takes an awful lot for a lawyer to get more than a slap on the wrist, and when it does happen it just as likely happens for the wrong reasons to the wrong attorney. However, I can tell you as someone entering the profession, the vast majority of lawyers do not understand the intricacies of copyright law. To be fair, the vast majority of Arsians don't understand the intricacies of copyright law either, and if we don't, what hope does your typical business contract attorney have? I'm sure the attorney in question here thought he or she was being clever in finding a way to eliminate, at the client's request, negative publicity but had no idea it would be illegal/unenforceable.

The real fun is if there isn't a severability clause, and the whole contract gets thrown out as a result.

Edit:

Korpo wrote:

My understanding is that, for example, a photographer with a newspaper is (generally) under a contract whereby the copyright on all pictures he takes in the line of duty belongs to the paper. Wouldn't that be assigning copyright on something that doesn't exist?

It seems like it'd be a mess of paperwork to have to get a copyright transfer on every picture the photographer takes, after the fact.

davharris wrote:

How do book advances work then? Presumably the publisher offers some money in exchange for copyright on a book that doesn't yet exist, right?

Sorry, I summarized too much. It is legally possible to assign future copyrights. There are certain bounds and technical requirements that vary from medium to medium, jurisdiction to jurisdiction, regarding what makes a valid future copyright assignment. As a general rule, you have to describe particularly what is being assigned (though this varies in severity from jurisdiction to jurisdiction). For the book publisher, the advancement would cover the book, which would be described in the contract.

Regarding the photographer, usually such contracts fall under the work-for-hire doctrine anyway, since the photographer becomes an employee of the newspaper. The same to some extent can be said of the book-writer, though there are mild differences regarding employee/contractor distinction. Both cases are presumably different than the present case, however, since the writer and photographer are remunerated for their work (ie. they are employees/contractors who are paid to produce copyrights for the parent company) whereas the patient here was not.

The Constitution protects the people from the government, not from each other. One could not, for instance, take Lee v. Dr. M to the Supreme Court.

There's only rarely any fallout for the lawyer who *should* have damned well known better.

This. As long as the Bar polices its own, there will be some degree of cronyism at play. It takes an awful lot for a lawyer to get more than a slap on the wrist, and when it does happen it just as likely happens for the wrong reasons to the wrong attorney.

Got any examples of discipline happening to the wrong person for the wrong reason? As someone not just entering the profession, and as someone who reads every disciplinary opinion my supreme court issues - around 70-100 per year - I can't think of any example where the wrong person has been disciplined for the wrong reason.

Disciplinary proceedings aren't for lawyers who drafted a bad contract; that's what malpractice is for.* Discipline is designed for lawyers who steal from clients, treat client funds as their own (even if they don't steal them), are dishonest (see Prenda), have unconscionable fee agreements, or do other dishonest or self-serving things. Otherwise, you're bringing Thurgood Marshall up on charges for bringing Brown v. Board of Ed., since Plessy was clearly the law of the land and had been for 60 years.

*And it's not necessarily even malpractice is the lawyer advised the client that a particular provision may not be enforceable.

You can't force patients to assign copyrights to you in order to receive treatment unless you're paying them for those copyrights.

Sure you can.

If you or your child is in significant pain, and your insurance coverage will only cover this very specific dentist, and they'll turn you away if you don't sign this, and you cannot afford to pay out of pocket...

...yeah, you'll sign it willingly, and I suppose you aren't technically 'forced' by anything other than physical pain.

On the matter of 'intricacies of copyright law' - one thing that might help is to simplify that law. No, I'm not trying to be simple-minded here; it's that from my last deep dive into the statute(s) it seems to me that there have been a great many exceptions made by Congress to protect special interests who coincidentally seem to have deep pockets for campaign contributions, favors, and sometimes are a large employer in a particular district. And by all that's holy remove anything that allows middlemen and other non-creators (including heirs and assigns) to have a perpetual money machine or means to prevent the proper flow of material to enter the public domain, as was originally intended as written into the Constitution. Copyright should exist to protect the author for a limited time and to protect the public domain, nothing more, nothing less.

On the matter of invalid or illegal contracts, I see nothing wrong with the state or the bar having a small committee of experts to whom anyone could submit a contract for review and opinion - such opinion to be binding by authority of that expertise - at no cost. This would be done as a public service to among other things prevent great cost to individuals and society as a whole and help prevent clogging the courts with bullshit.

Lastly (glad, aren't you?) the notion of any professional or business bloc "policing its own" is absurd, however laudable one might make it seem. Related, so long as we prefer finding fault, assigning blame, and exacting punishment as distinct from figuring out what is and what went wrong and then making things right, we automatically set up bad situations, whether they're kept in house or not.

Contracts are based on an exchange. If you put conditions into a contract that are totally one-sided, it is not even a valid contract.

I like the sentiment; but the boat appears to have sailed on absurd contracts of adhesion [i]long[]/i] ago. (Consult your bank, telco, ISP, or just about any other large corporation you've ever 'agreed to a contract' with for inscrutable details that they reserve the right to change at any time.)

Social media business rating sites are bad news. They are far more evil then is perceived. Look into TripAdvisors "Review Express" tool for businesses and think about how that works in practice in allowing businesses to skew their results while simultaneously promoting trip advisor. I am sure Yelp and the rest have similar tools.

Am I the only one who finds the dentist Dr. Makhnevich looking extremely scary in that picture?

I hate to be sexist, but when I saw how high the fees were, saw the "Is this an escort service?" picture, and looked at her "cocierge dentistry" site, my first thought was that this was dentistry that included a happy ending.

Social media business rating sites are bad news. They are far more evil then is perceived. Look into TripAdvisors "Review Express" tool for businesses and think about how that works in practice in allowing businesses to skew their results while simultaneously promoting trip advisor. I am sure Yelp and the rest have similar tools.

That's why you should always read the reviews that are negative. They tell you how good or bad the company or its product really is.

“It’s quite possible that the consequence of her having this contract is that she had to give up her dental practice,”

I guess that is for the best given that there are people too stupid or too desperate to walk out of there when presented with that nonsense.

Or unable to walk due to insurance restrictions.

I'd consider not having other options to fall under "desperate" whether due to insurance limitations, urgency, geographical proximity or whatever.

Well, then consider this. Dentistry suffers from the same problem that the health care system in general suffers from: a lack of transparency on what things should cost, and an inability on the part of the consumer to compare prices before you have work done.

Any time you have any kind of medical procedure or dental procedure, you are pretty much taking the provider's word for it that the cost is fair and equitable. But you don't know, because price lists are never published.

That puts the consumer at a severe disadvantage, especially if the medical or dental need is an emergency.

It really is unfair to put the blame for this kinds of issues on the consumer when you CAN'T get the information you need to make a truly informed decision.

The Constitution protects the people from the government, not from each other. One could not, for instance, take Lee v. Dr. M to the Supreme Court.

Edit: Spelling

Sure you could, if there were a Constitutional issue to be decided. For example, the Montsano patent issue on soybeans was a dispute between a small farmer and a major corporation. The government wasn't a party to the case.

Note to all: must we quote so excessively? Can we not snip out the massive dreck and keep just the point we are responding to?

That's why you should always read the reviews that are negative. They tell you how good or bad the company or its product really is.

I used to do this on eBay, back when sellers could also leave feedback. How a seller responded to negative feedback told me a lot about the company. Sometimes negative reviews ARE simply sour grapes. Some customers are suckstomers: jerks who behave badly and then write a bad review when the merchant doesn't cave to the unreasonable demand.